Archive for the ‘Excavation’ Category

Ötzi the Iceman

Monday, September 19th, 2011

Erika and Helmut Simon usually liked to complete their mountain excursions in a single day; they were experienced climbers and knew what they could comfortably manage. On Wednesday 18th September 1991, therefore, they knew that by getting held up whilst crossing a glacier, and then still pressing on to climb the peak that was their aim for the day, they would have to spend the night on the hill. That was no problem as there was a refuge nearby. The next morning dawned bright and, like any other climbers, Erikaand Helmut found the conditions irresistible and decided to bag another peak. It was on their return to pick up their rucksacks from the hut that it happened. Erika saw it first: a brown smudge in the snow, which, as they came closer, took the form of a man. For mountaineers, death is always a possibility, so the find, gruesome as it was, did not unduly surprise them and they tried to prise the remains out of the ice with their axes. What they had no way of knowing is that the body, christened Ötzi for the region in which he was found, had been dead for 5,300 years. He was the oldest frozen mummy ever known.

Dressed for travelling, Ötzi wore leather trousers, a deerskin coat, and a cape fashioned from woven grass. His shoes were finely made with bearskin soles and stuffed with grass as a precaution against the cold. His cap was pieced together from odd bits of fur but it would have been warm. He also carried a backback, an unfinished bow and arrows, some tools including a fire-lighting kit, and a copper axe. He was, perhaps, as much as 45 years old when he died, a grand age for a man at this time. What he was doing so high in the mountains remains a mystery but the circumstances surrounding his death are slowly being pieced together by an international team of experts; bringing to life the sorry tale of a time almost five millennia ago.

Ötzi came from the southern side of the Alps and was born and raised in the folded valleys of the foothills. He probably left a settlement in the Val Venosta, in Italy, on that fateful morning of his flight into the mountains. We can be reasonably certain about this as the microscopic bits of stone in his gut, originating from the stone tools used to prepare his food, leave a geological signature that can be precisely located. He was dressed for the hills and carried much of what he would have needed to make an extended stay comfortable, that is, provided he did not venture too high. Ötzi also carried something valuable and new: copper. A copper axe may have marked him out as a wealthy man and, perhaps, even a leader that others followed. If so, then his reign as leader was shortly to come to a dramatic end.

Ötzi was not in the best of health; his backpack contained medicine and modern analysis of his body shows signs of frailty. Maybe others saw this as a chance to seize power. Discontent was clearly festering as Ötzi had suffered a cut to his hand just a day or so before he died. The few nicks on the edge of his axe-blade may have been as a result of this altercation although we shall never know whether he was using it as a weapon or as a symbol for his diminishing status. It seems likely that similar threats forced him to make that fateful journey into the mountains. Pollen layers in his gut show that he travelled through the low altitude hornbeam trees, moved up to a stand of high altitude pines, before doubling back and visiting the hornbeams again. Perhaps he was trying to elude his pursuers. It did not work. Eventually, and probably through sheer desperation, he followed a pass up into the mountains where an arrow, expertly aimed so that it cut an artery, caused him to bleed to death. Before he died, his assailant removed the arrow, perhaps to mask the tell-tale mark of his or her identity. To make sure Ötzi was truly dead, his assailant also struck him on the head. An ignominious end for an old man. Whoever killed him, and there may have been more than one involved, left Ötzi’s belongings, including his axe, where they lay. Again, this may have been a precaution to avoid later detection but perhaps the items were just too special and too closely bound to Ötzi that their removal could not be countenanced. Enough harm had been done that day. With the last of his strength, Ötzi seems to have reached out for his axe – even today, his arm remains stretched across his body – but it was not to be. Whether he realised the sacred object was still close by or not, it could do little for him and he died alone, frozen in time.

In a bizarre twist, Simon Helmut, the man who jointly found Ötzi on 19th September twenty years ago, shared the same fate as his sensational discovery. In October 2004, his dead body was recovered from the ice where it had been trapped, just like Ötzi’s had, so many years before.

Comments (0)

Death and Rebirth in Byzantine Sicily

Friday, February 25th, 2011

Death and rebirth is a common theme of many religions, often with a God dying and being reborn at certain times of the year. In shamanic communities, death and rebirth also alludes to the shamanic journey and the physical state of the shaman as he or she enters and returns from the otherworld.

Death and rebirth is also central to the Christian faith, with Jesus dying on the cross on Good Friday to be resurrected two days later on Easter Sunday. Within Christianity, such a cycle of death and rebirth seems entirely limited to Jesus, however, with the only hope of rebirth for ordinary mortals being in the afterlife. In fact, having the ability to die and be reborn may even be viewed as heretical and against the natural order determined by God.

It is on this basis that recent discoveries at the Byzantine village of Kaukana, on Sicily, are so interesting. Between AD 580 to cAD 640, a house within Kaukana was built, occupied, and finally abandoned when wind-blown sand engulfed the interior. Within the confines of the house, and probably constructed after the occupants had moved out, is a tomb, built above ground in the style usually reserved for high-status individuals. Inside were a woman and her daughter. Finding such a tomb within a house, at this date, is highly unusual.

Evidence around the tomb – a hearth for cooking and copious food remains – suggests that people were returning to the tomb to feast with the dead spirits that lay within. This was frowned upon by religious authorities, and they would have been horrified to learn that there was also a small hole in the covering of the tomb to allow libations and other choice morsels to be passed to the dead woman inside.

We know that the occupants of the tomb were Christian since there are many symbols with alpha and omega signs; clearly those burying the woman thought that they were important to include. So, the question is: why did people – probably Christian themselves – defy their own tradition and bury a woman in a high-status tomb, in a house (possibly her own), and then continue to visit the site to cook and share food with the deceased? A strange mark on the woman’s cranium might provide the answer.

A small dimple at the back of the skull, as well as signs of water-on-the-brain, suggests meningocele, a condition leading to headaches and frequent fainting fits. It is the fits that are significant. A woman who regularly faints with seizures, only to rise again a few minutes later, may have been thought to be divinely touched, even replicating the death and resurrection of Jesus himself. In Renaissance times, St Catherine was venerated for precisely these qualities.

At Kaukana, was the posthumous treatment of the woman because people revered her power or did they fear her reach, even after death? Or did they think that she might possibly rise once again and kept her tended and fed for this possibility?

The dig, led by Professor Roger Wilson of the University of Columbia, returns to Sicily this year and will attempt to uncover more about this remarkable woman and her powers of resurrection.

More information on the University of British Columbia website.

Comments (2)

Old Bones: The Reburial Issue in the UK

Friday, December 3rd, 2010

With no specific legislation determining how archaeologists excavate, handle, and curate bones, the Ministry of Justice has ruled that the Burial Act of 1857 will govern archaeologists excavating any human remains. This requires reburial after a maximum of two years and for the initial excavation and handling of the bones to be screened from the public.

This historical Act was designed to cover the expansion of our cities over contemporary cemeteries, where developers would haul out Auntie Mildred in front of horrified relatives and grind up her bones for dog meal. In these circumstances, the Act worked well. Archaeological excavation is clearly different and perhaps requires different rules.

It seems unnecessary for the excavation of human remains to be screened from the public. This is our past and if remains need to be removed from the ground (which they often do before development or, exceptionally and arguably, if they are particularly important for the advancement of knowledge), it should be done within the community and observed by those members of the community who wish to witness the event. It should not be hidden behind green gauze. This smacks of secrecy and a lack of respect for the descendants of the bones, which could, theoretically, include us all.

Reburial after two years is also problematic if we are going to gain all the information we can from the bones. My own research relies on work undertaken on human remains so I am not going to be hypocritical and suggest that such research is limited. The bones excavated from Stonehenge in 2008 were expected to be in the laboratory undergoing tests until 2015. This will not now happen and information about our shared human past will potentially be lost.

If Ötzi the Iceman had been reburied after two years, the loss of information from his remains would be incalculable since new discoveries continue with the advance of technology. In some cases, old bones have even helped medical science understand the spread of disease such as leprosy and this has helped in its management.

For me, where bones can add to the sum of human knowledge, they should be studied. This is not disrespectful to the ancient dead but an attempt to know them and their world better. This is what I try to do through my research and writing. From a spiritual standpoint, my feeling is that the ancestors would not object to this.

The real problem comes with reburial. Archaeologists often want the bones retained (or displayed in museums) whereas others want them reinterred in the ground (and it should be pointed out that the current legislation does not require reburial in the same location or in the same context as the remains were excavated. In particular, grave goods or offerings are not covered under the Act).

Museum displays of human remains always make me feel uncomfortable but I realise I am in a minority compared to the general population. I especially do not like the remains displayed as artefacts and, if they are going to remain in museums (which seems likely), there needs to be a better way to display them. As things stand, I don’t think people appreciate what they are witnessing or are encouraged to reflect upon the individual that the bones represent. I would separate human remains from the main gallery and attempt to inspire some reverence upon observers, perhaps by darkening the room and letting the remains be the sole focus of study. It would also be advantageous if something of the sanctity of the burial rite could be retained. The Russians certainly demand respect from the tourist hoards that visit Lenin’s body every year.

Whilst it would be nice if all bones could be excavated, studied, and returned to their original place of burial (and this should perhaps be the aim, however infrequently it occurs in practice), some bones will inevitably be retained, either for scientific reasons or because their place of burial no longer exists.

For storage, maybe a compromise (and we do need a compromise) is to build dedicated charnel houses – preferably underground – to replace the myriad cardboard boxes in scattered museums. Bones could be sorted and stored close to their point of excavation in much the same way that Neolithic people stored bones in chambered tombs. Access would be granted to researchers and the public, with space specifically reserved for education, ritual, or even private contemplation. Anyone wanting to remove the bones for use – whether it is for scientific research, community education, or ritual – would need to demonstrate that they could look after the remains and have the wherewithal to do so. Ideally, this would lead to collaboration between spiritual use and academic research where bones were entrusted to joint temporary custodianship and resources pooled accordingly. Recently in Japan, for example, a Shinto priest worked with the spirit of an Egyptian mummy prior to its display in an exhibition. I accept that some remains may be too fragile or too valuable to be released but provision could be made for some level of interaction at the charnel house.

This is an emotive subject and I hope that I have not offended any deeply held views; reburial inflames passions unlike anything else. But without movement on both sides, the current unacceptable situation will remain. New rules are required, both to govern the initial archaeological excavation and the respectful curation or reburial of remains. The presently unworkable impasse affords an opportunity for the entire issue to be discussed and a new approach adopted that better reflects concerns and aspirations on all sides. I hope we can work something out.

Comments (2)